Request made by: N1h1l 13:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

...Peoples' Global Action

Who's involved?

...User:Anro, User:Lavieenrose, User:Moderntimes, User:Harrypotter User:Paki.tv

What's going on?

...A contentious paragraph is being added (by User:Harrypotter, User:Paki.tv), then removed (by User:Anro, User:Lavieenrose, User:Moderntimes or Anon), then re-added and re-removed, etc... Both groups claim vandalism on the other's part.

... Although I am not central to this skirmish, I think that the case could be made that the information does not belong on the page as no academic sources are available (only deep web, mailing list threads, etc.). However, constructive dialogue is not occuring.

What would you like to change about that?

...A third party opinion on the validity of the information in dispute would be helpful.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...I don't think that discreet is needed.

I'll take up this case. Discussion remains here. --physicq210 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have a copy of the article section where the paragraph in question is placed? I need copies of both with and without the paragraph. Please post them on the talkpage of this case. Thanks. --physicq210 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so we have a case where Harry Potter, Paki.tv and N1h1l keep including an incorrect paragraph into a page. They provide no verification (they refer to corrected minutes) and no reliable sources (non-public mailing list archives), and their information does not comply with NPOV. There are plenty of mails to prove that their allegation of a controversy is incorrect. In order to maintain Netiquette it is not adequate to link to e-mails in an encyclopedia. The incorrect paragraph does not comply with Wikipedia standards as an encyclopedia based on verified information. Lavieenrose, 10 August 2006.

Wait a minute. Who are the involved parties here, and who is on what side? --physicq210 22:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Paki.TV- I know Harypotter and have met Anro on occasion - and have experience of the PGA, having been at the Belgrade conference ( Harrypotter was also there and I think Anro was there too ) where the issue of the right-wing started to come out - alot of the material is not on-line, but if u look at http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/links/index.htm the PGA link to Evrasia: Eurasia (pga infopoint, Sumy, Ukraine) evrazia AT ukr.net is still there - it is Leonid Savin's email address, and it is quite well documented that the Eurasianists are allied to National Bolshevilks and National Socialists - check this link http://www.evrazia.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2640 . If there is no contreversy, are you now suggesting that PGA is actively allied with the right wing? Paki.tv 06:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are trying to say. Could you clarify? Thanks. --physicq210 17:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paki.TV: Which part of the following sentence do you not understand: "We reject all forms and systems of domination and discrimination including, but not limited to, patriarchy, racism and religious fundamentalism of all creeds. We embrace the full dignity of all human beings." There is clearly no controversy about this sentence. Lavieenrose 12 August 2006

Clarification: The controversy is in the interpretation of precisely that hallmark - and the relationship of the PGA network to the 'new right' and nationalist socialist forms such as 'national anarchism', 'national bolshevism' etc which is precisely why the passage in question needs to be included. Paki.tv 14:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Peoples Global Action page includes a section about the Hallmarks, and a paragrah was added which dealt with a controversy which arose about the interpretation of these hallmarks. This was also linked to the fact that a certain Leonid Savin, who at that time was running the PGA info-point in the Ukraine was also Youth organiser of the fascist Eurasia Party. When citations were requested, citations were provided. In fact the citations chosen were precisely from the minutes and a PGA discussion list. This list, contary to what Lavieenrose was public, which is why it is accessible. When Lavieenrose says "There are plenty of mails to prove that their allegation of a controversy is incorrect." this is somewhat bizarre, as the existence of this e-mails would suggest that there is a contoversy. However, please also see Choice of Fascists, From Institutional Racism To Flirting With Fascism, which as I am involved with this website I did not see it as appropraite to include. For another point of view see My Belgrade Experience

In course of this discussion I got to a rather stupid argument with a long-time PGA activist from London. I hope that he has changed his mind since, but then he was arguing that by inviting people to demonstration of the strikers next day, I was breaking PGA hallmarks, because action was organized by authoritarian trade unionists where according to hallmarks, PGA is for horizontal organizing. I hope shortcomings of this argument are obvious to everybody, but perhaps at the next conference some discussion on whathallmarks really mean would be at place.

I also note that User:Anro, User:Lavieenrose, User:Moderntimes, all have only made contributions to wikipedia on this issue. This makes me wonder whether they are not all PGA apparatchniks whose sole endeavour is to turn the PGA wikipedia entry simply into advertising blurb. I feel that myself and Paki.tv have been careful not to promote our views - which would necessitate a detailed analysis of how Institutional racism operates in the PGA - as we feel this is an inappropraite place. However, as these issues did arise, and indeed the minutes were only "corrected" following the meeting organised in London about Institutional Racism mentioned in the link above. I feel that the brief paragraph makes an important contribution to understanding what the PGA actually is. As regards the last interjection by Lavieenrose, the issue is not with the wording of the so-called Hallmark, but with the practice of the organisation. It should also be noted that despite providing citations to verified sources on a public list, none of the people opposing the inclusion of this paragraph have suggested that the information is not true, and if they find a problem with the way the information is presented, then they should try and find a compromise.Harrypotter 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, in short, you added the paragraph because you believe the article needed a criticism section? I don't want to get into people's (or parties') political leanings. This is not the correct channel for it. --physicq210 23:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the issue was to do with the "hallmarks", in that they have also been used by other organisations (such as Dissent! (network). Perhaps the matter could be dealt with in terms of a criticism section. I agree that this is not the channel for having a political discussion, but I do believe it is suitable and reasonable to record that there was controversy, and that this was linked to the successful infiltration of the PGA by Leonid Savin as these are facts. The paragraph included does not go into the differing positions in that controversy, nor the right and wrongs of the Savin affair for that reason, for that very reason. Harrypotter 23:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there still is no valid information on the alleged controversy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on verifiability, this means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. This is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are No original research and Neutral point of view. None of these principles are fulfilled here. So this is not a case of some "apparatchniks" but of concern for Wikipedia's quality standards, since the sole endeavour of these two people seems to be to turn Wikipedia into an opinion blog that is not based on verified facts.

The Jajinci minutes referred to present no facts on a controversy. The minutes clearly state: the sentence in question "reads badly, and does not reflect the sentiment of the spokescouncil meeting. It could be interpreted wrongly, as it does not reflect the context in which it was made, which was to question the possibility that such 'openness' could be perceived to include fascists. We are facing the long-term reality of the rise of racism and fascism in the world. This is a reality that needs to be confronted and challenged by the PGA network and the groups that are active within it.'" Even if this comment was added later, there is no evidence there was a controversy on the hallmarks according to this source. Therefore, following Wikipedia principles, there is no reason to include this paragraph in the encyclopedia entry. Lavieenrose 13 August 2006

So are we to conclude from this you only wish to remove any reference to controversy. Would this be acceptable to you.

In the minutes of the 2004 European PGA conference in Jajinci, Belgrade it was suggested that "a fascist coming as an interested individual, respecting the hallmarks and whose behaviour during the conference was fine wouldn't be a problem."^[1]. A rider was subsequently added ^[2]. However when it was subsequently discovered that Leonid Savin (the co-ordinator of the Ukraine PGA info-point) sympathised with the New Right politics of Alexander Dugin, and indeed shown to be an activist of the Eurasia Party, the PGA Ukraine info-point was removed from the PGA website.^[3]. See also National anarchism.

Personally I do not understand why you take such exception to the suggestion that this effort to include members of fascist organisations was controversial. Perhaps it would be better if we had a section on far right infiltration of the PGA, coupling Savin's efforts with those of Mike Dolan of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, whose e-mail to a PGA listserve in March 1999 is reproduced on The Progressive Left's Dirty Little Secret: Public Citizen, IFG and the Far Right.

Dear Harry Potter, I wrote: "incorrect paragraph" not "word" and I also noted adding this incorrect paragraph was as if somebody kept adding a paragraph to the Wikipedia page Earth saying "the Earth is flat" and adding a link to "pigs can fly". Adding a link to a nationalist site in Australia does not prove your point and I would not consider it a reliable source. - Lavieenrose, 14 August 2006.

So what you are saying is there is no prospect of compromise. You are simply insisting that there should be no reference to fascist infiltration of the PGA, because . . . you do not think there should be one. The paragraph is not "incorrect", all you are interested in is continuing the pretence that the PGA was not subject to New Right infiltration. There was in the case of Savin as there was previously in the USA. I can see no point in continuing with this mediation.Harrypotter 22:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think NPOV is boss-talk, and that Harry Potter and Paki.tv have little chance against private LARC cops (masquerading as the public, and saying criticism equals flat-earthism) and Wikipedia bureaucrats (presenting as community wardens or mediators)...

and that this place is as Winston Smithy as anywhere else (e.g. the cold war ended in 1989, and early big-media reports on 911 didn't talk about bombs in the basements; nor have boss propaganda procedures kept up with the information revolution - yeah right), but let's leave that aside for a brief moment and play the game.

The facts do not seem to be in dispute, namely that there was a controversy over openly fascist involvement in the PGA.

Inclusion of a link to info from Companies House might be interesting too, not to mention public information from the Land Registry. (A clearer case of you-know-what is hard to think of - More than infiltration surely?). A case for putting the boot in, without upholding the idea that a political scene should be better, or closer to an ideal, or whatever. Make shame more shameful still as the old boy put it.

Right, I'm off down the working men's club to tell 'em how hallmarks are the accepted indicator of purity, proper provenance, and genuinely radical motivations. I thought everyone who was comme il faut knew that. At least they all do at pater's garden parties. Or maybe those chaps scurrying around actually holding the platters don't, but really, let's be serious... I mean they don't need to know anyway, the conventional little oiks with their pathetic grey lives... 158-152-12-77 11:06, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Anro, since you posted your latest comment after I posted mine (even if this is not objectively verifiable, because you did not use a time-stamp), I presume that I am one of the critics you mention. For your information, I am not involved with West Essex Zapatista or any other group.

Nor do I know what group you yourself may or may not be involved with, although a bookie might lay short odds about your involvement with the PGA. If you accuse your opponents of belonging to a particular group, it would be courteous to say a) why that would be of any relevance, if it were true (and personally I don't know whether it's true or not), and b) whether you yourself belong to any group. But wouldn't it be better still to concentrate on the weight of what people are saying? It seems to me that Harrypotter and Paki.tv are sticking to the facts. Facts are what I want when I use an encyclopaedia, not adverts. 158-152-12-77 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: Your opening comments displayed only open contempt for the dispute resolution process. I am not assuming bad faith on my part; it is my interpretation of your potentially inflammatory statements.

Second, I am only a mediator here. I'm here out of the the goodness of my heart, not to be demonized by contemptuous editors. I'm not here to listen to statements loaded with political rhetoric and lacking of evidence. This goes for both sides.

Third, accusing editors and mediators of Wikipedia of being abusive "private LARC cops" or any equivalent is not only of bad taste, but explicitly forbidden. See WP:NPA and WP:FAITH.

Fourth, I have no agenda. I do not support or oppose any side. Assuming so is a violation of WP:FAITH.

As far as I can see, these editors are remaining civil and courteous even if their viewpoints differ. The last thing we need here is an editor who not disrespects the process, but the viewpoints of others. --physicq210 22:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fsck off then, shall I? It would be far far preferable to affecting to have some sort of 'NPOV'. No thanks for the 'taste' lesson. If you yourself need a lesson, it's in reading comprehension, because absolutely nowhere have I accused you of supporting or opposing either side. In fact I didn't even refer (or allude) to anything you have said or done, one way or the other. You hadn't even come onto my radar. Part of 'NPOV' means 'don't criticise Wikipedia', of course. It might lower its share price come IPO day. Not that I'm saying this is something you understand.158-152-12-77 23:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is telling you to leave outright. I'm just asking you to be more constructive in your comments. --physicq210 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to resolve this problem, let me first ask this question.

Should there be a criticism/controversy section of some sort within this article?

Support

2. 158-152-12-77
3. Paki.tv 16:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

2. User:Anro, the criticism arised at this page lacks any reasonable arguments, it is just an attempt to defame PGA by a small UK group called "West Essex Zapatista". To this sort of criticism I oppose.
3. User:Lavieenrose, criticism is always valid if it is based on facts. In this case, however, the allegations of right-wing infiltration have nothing to do with reality. We have not been given any verifiable proof, even the Jajinci minutes do not provide any evidence. 14 August 2006

Neutral

1. N1h1l, a criticism section would add to the article, but only if the critiques can be appropriately sourced. I do not believe that mailing lists and deep web sources meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. IMO, that rules out this and this, but not the PGA minutes.

I should have been more clear. I meant if there should be an entirely new criticism section (in other words, not the version we have now, but an enirely new criticism/controversy section. --physicq210 22:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by 158-152-12-77: in my opinion the version supported by Harrypotter and Paki.tv is suitable. Does that mean I should respond 'OPPOSE' to your question? Good advice is not to change a vote-type question once you are starting to get responses to it. Maybe let this one run its course and then ask another question if you want. After all, if someone backs a criticism section with certain characteristics (e.g. newness, oldness), then they do back a criticism section, so maybe we are getting somewhere. I.e. it's an OK question as it stands. Mind you, I think Lavieenrose isn't being entirely straightforward, since it is obviously false that criticism is always valid if it's based on facts, and anyway I hadn't realised that the issue here was the validity or otherwise of criticism, or even the inclusion or exclusion of criticism. As for the 'right wing', it would be a curious definition of fascism that denied it can also come from the 'left wing', as well as from the 'centre'. But the entry of rightist fascist elements into the PGA has been demonstrated. 158-152-12-77 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is if there should be any criticism/controversy section in the article at all. --physicq210 23:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you did say in the first place, which I thought was fine and understood by all. Which would be very different from asking whether people wanted a completely new section. Might you make make more effort, perhaps?158-152-12-77 23:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'naturally' or 'of course', it is always useful to include criticism - which will include (criticism FROM) both the left and right (and above and below etc, too!) and this is a trend noticed in Wikipedia entries generally - something that is maybe becoming standardised as practice. Of course this recuperation (recovery from illness) of criticism is reflecting how antisystemics fold back into a systemic structure - for example how the voluntary unpaid effort of contributors is regulated by capitalist relations to which they must inevitably return ... unless... 62.25.106.209 10:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A criticism/controversy section based on these allegations makes no sense. There is no wording that can be found for these allegations that is suitable for an encyclopedia, because there are no verifiable facts. Lavieenrose, 15 August 2006

Lavieenrose, you now base your opposition wholly on the allegation of unverifiability, so let us discuss that issue. Harrypotter has posted links which verify what he and Paki.tv say. What is wrong with links to undisputedly accurate web-based records of public mailing lists? They verify that there has indeed been controversy over the fascist connection.

From what I can deduce from the current article, I see that Peoples' Action Network is (only) an anti-capitalist and anti-globalization movement, without differentiating between left-wing or right-wing. What do "fascists" have to do with this? I'm not fueling the fire for the anti-inclusionists, but asking a purely academic question. And by the way, the article is far from perfect, hence the confusion that may result. --physicq210 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you read the PGA Hallmarks attentive, you will see a clear reaction of fascist (right-wing) tendencies. PGA is at least a huge network of grassroots organizations, but it is not an "organization" in "classic" style, so you can't count "members" cause there is *no* "membership".

Some big Organizations of landless movements, farmers, fishworkers and indigenous communities in the global south are affiliated to this network. Their arguments are oftelnly based on "people" and "territory" which is sometimes misinterpretated by western left wing people to be fascist.

West Essex Zapatista, which is trying again and again to defame PGA as rhigt wing infiltrated is a tiny sect-like group of a few individuals in the UK, which is already "disqualified" by lots of UK activist groups.

Dear Mediator physicq210, first of all I do not understand why you introduced the disputed section into the article again. That certainly does not reflect any kind of mediation or compromise and would mean that Wikipedia gives up all its quality principles. This makes no sense and would be unacceptable.

Several times I explained there was no proof for the allegations made. There was agreement from N1h1l that mailing lists are no reliable sources.

Above all, there is a clear differentiation of PGA against the right-wing. The [PGA website] gives a definite proof that PGA is fighting right-wing tendencies, is a network of grassroots movements fighting against fascism, racism, war, etc. -- Lavieenrose, 16 August 2006

When I finally had to intervene after repeated additions and removals, the paragraph was there. I added a note detailing the dispute, and added a {{content}} tag on top of the article section. I have to admit; it's not the best or most impartial decision I ever made, but it was necessary to stop the edit war. Sorry if there were any confusions. I can go add another dispute tag if you want. --physicq210 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about now? I left the paragraph in there, but now it cannot be seen on the article page. This is only an interim measure, though. --physicq210 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussion above, I piece together this summarized result:

• Harrypotter and Paki.tv argue that there is right-wing infiltration into the PGA and accuse Moderntimes, Lavieenrose, and Anro of stifling criticism and dissent.
• Moderntimes, Lavieenrose, and Anro argue that the paragraph in question depicts non-notable and poorly sourced information and accuse Harrypotter and Paki.tv of pushing the views of a fringe minority.
• N1h1l argues that the paragraph in question is notable, but should be included only if citations conforming with WP:RS are used.

Please correct me if I am wrong. And please, correct only if my summary of your position is incorrect. Remember, this is a general picture of things, not a detailed painting of the dispute. --physicq210 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how I would characterize my position. I think that some of the citations used do not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'd like to see a compromise in which the Savin issue was dealt with using only appropriately sourced materials. Thus, if controversy cannot be documented without resorting to deep web sources and mailing lists, then I believe the issue should not be characterized as a controversy. - N1h1l 22:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? --physicq210 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough I guess. :) - N1h1l 01:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that the paragraph in question contains false accusations, not that it depicts non-notable information.

A huge box gives too much weight to the false accusations, therefore it should be enough to have a small note at the end of the page referring to the discussions on the Talk page. And I will be really glad if this case can be closed soon. ;-)) - Lavieenrose 15:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we all want this to end? But if Harrypotter and Paki.tv aren't speaking up, then I can't do much. --physicq210 21:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear moderator, wot can i say? these people have gone from questioning sources, to verification to now denying that these events ever took place. AnRo and Lavie just show themselves to be PGA liars. My position is clear and unchanged since the begining of this case. i don't know wot more u want from me? BTW, there has been mention of LARC and i wonder if you are aware of wot that is? Paki.tv 08:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear mediator, again, can we agree on a note at the bottom of the page referring to the talk page and please end this case? I think if one party is calling others liars (and worse) that is not very constructive and therefore there's no sense in carrying on the debate. --Lavieenrose 16:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As this case has reached an impasse that I cannot overcome, the best thing I can do is offer final advice to all parties.

I would advise that you try using the village pump if you want outside opinions regarding this matter. Someone to help you guys "think outside the box," if you will.

If outside opinions cannot resolve the conflict, then you may have to take it up to the Mediation Committee, which has more powers than the Mediation Cabal.

Let me offer my opinion about the conduct of this case. It is sad to watch how civil you all entered this mediation, only to leave the room calling each other liars, fascists, and other demeaning personal attacks. It is sad to watch how I came in expecting this to resolve quickly, only to see that some are not willing to compromise and come to consensus.

I will close this case in three days if there are no objections. Good luck to all. --physicq210 21:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving it a shot. - N1h1l 22:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mediator, well, this case will certainly have to be taken to the Mediation Committee. I do not think Wikipedia should be left to those with the most aggressive behaviour. In this mediation process several Wikipedia principles have been repeatedly ignored, including No Personal Attacks and Assuming Good Faith. I have no words for Harry Potter's comments and his attacks on so-called "apparatchniks" (that do not exist, of course, because PGA is a network and has no organisational apparatus).

I hope it is at least clear that there should be no links to mails and mailing list archives as they certainly are not a reliable source (because the archives of 2004/2005 have been copied to another website and were last altered in August 2006). I sincerely hope Wikipedia will not deteriorate into an opinion blog instead of being an encyclopedia based on facts. --Lavieenrose 22:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for your efforts.

Some comments:

• User:Moderntimes was not involved in the debate, only making one wikipedia entry on 18th July, no doubt carried away by celebrating the J18 Carnival Against Capitalism of 1999.

• As regards lying, this is an issue which User:Lavieenrose brought up - using the euphemism false accusation. I think Paki.tv is correct in saying that they have shifted their ground from questioning sources to denying the events ever took place. It is with User:Lavieenrose that the issue of lying arises.

• However User:Anro has not quite gone this far, but it depends what you understand by defamation. However it would be quite hard for him to suggest that this is a false accusation, as On New Right infiltration in PGA states: "the exclusion from the infopoints list was done deliberately following Laure's mail to the process list. Anro will alter the map soon." We shall see whether User:Anro makes clear his position on this, or is prepared to hide behind User:Lavieenrose.

• User:Anro's response to the request for information is largely beside the point. Whilst the PGA claims not to be an organisation and not have a membership, does not mean this is the case. (Anymore than the claim that National Socialism is a form of socialism is necessarily true.) In my experience, far from being a "huge network", the PGA consists of twenty to thirty peple, primarily in Europe, funded by a multi-milliononaire from the Vestey family, who have a relationship with one or two organisation in India with a mass base. This cadre of apparatchniks uses "classic" Bakuninist techniques of the invisible dictatorship gyrating around the cheque book of its funder. However as this is all first hand experience, it would not be right to include it in the article. What has beem included is externally verifiable material about right wing infiltrartion of the PGA

What is most worrying is that the PGA apparatchniks are trying to cover up the infiltration, rather than work out how they can better protect themselves from such incursions

Certainly this is not the first time there has been right-wing infiltration of the PGA, both in the USA in 1999/2000 Seattle '99, wedding party of the left and the right?, an alternative source to the Australian Nationalist website which was previously objected to. However at that time the PGA was healthy enough to respond to it. What is more disturbing is the more recent case of Leonid Savin. The New Right, particularly in the former Soviet Union, are keen to infiltrate anti-capitalists movements. Unfortuantely PGA apparatchniks are not able to deal with it in a sensible way, instead to accuse those of us who refuse to shut up about this phenomenon of lying, reciting again and again the Hallmarks as though they constitute some kind of mantra. It is reminiscent of Thomas Jefferson who wrote the bit about All men are created equal in the American Declaration of Independence, whilst being himself a slave owner. For many Jefferson is noted as a liberal or even a libertarian, however other shave noted his hypocracy. For all their finely buttered parsnips, the PGA apparatchniks like User:Lavieenrose and User:Anro suffer from the same problem as Jefferson - because their politics are also middle class bourgeois liberalism. I think the only person who has been called a fascist is Savin, and correctly so because of his allegiance to Duginism.Harrypotter 21:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is August 21. All I can do now is sit back and watch how this case goes as it goes through the winding path of dispute resolution. I will keep an ever watchful eye on this case, and you may see my comments on MedCom and/or ArbCom if circumstances warrant. All of them, of course, are from a mediator's point of view. So, good luck, and (although an oxymoron) dispute peacefully. --physicq210 17:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal Case Closed on 17:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)